#403619 ITP: languagetool -- rule-based language checker

#403619#5
Date:
2006-12-18 13:53:31 UTC
From:
To:
Package name: languagetool
Version: 0.8.6
Upstream Author: Daniel Naber (naber at danielnaber de)
URL: http://www.danielnaber.de/languagetool
License: Mostly LGPL, also some BSD, Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0
Description: A rule-based language checker

This is a rule-based language checker for which a rule is defined.
It can detect errors that a simple spell checker cannot detect e.g.
mixing up there/their, no/now etc. It can also detect a limited
amount of grammar mistakes.

It currently has support for English, German, Polish, and Dutch, and
limited support for French, Spanish, and Italian.

It can be used standalone, as plugin for openoffice.org, with LyX,
in java applications and as standalone web server.


I think this would be a useful thing to have in Debian, since we
currently don't seem to have something simular.  But I have no
intention to package this myself.


Kurt

#403619#10
Date:
2006-12-18 14:42:20 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

Am Montag, 18. Dezember 2006 14:53 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
					isn't that non-free?

Doesn't build with free Java. ("requires Java 1.5 or later")

I looked at it once, and might try it again when we have the free Java stack
here. (Only possible, though when we have the compiler and the JVM I guess)

Regards,

Rene

#403619#15
Date:
2006-12-18 15:00:55 UTC
From:
To:
I have no idea, but I think so.  Afaik, this is only for one of the
languages that are supported, and could probably be removed without
much problems.  In any case, it would be a good idea to
do a full audit of the licenses before uploading.

I did see that, and I have no idea if it works with anything in main or
not.  Maybe it has to go to contrib on non-free for now.


Kurt

#403619#20
Date:
2006-12-18 17:02:52 UTC
From:
To:
Quoting Kurt Roeckx (kurt@roeckx.be):

I think you should removed the leading article (lintian will warn
about it)

Experience shows that detailed features for evolutive stuff are not
always well maintained....so I'm wondering whether listing the
explicitely supported languages is a good idea.




Aprat from all this, I think this is something we could widely benefit
in Debian and I would even vote for a freeze exception if I had a
chance to be listened by the release managers (having such a tool in
stable would help us with the i18n server and probably could be used
byt the D-I "spellchecker" as well....both running on stable machines.

But I'm afraid it's a little bit too late..:)

#403619#25
Date:
2006-12-22 15:45:57 UTC
From:
To:
retitle 403619 ITP: languagetool -- rule-based language checker
owner 403619 Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>
thanks

Hi,

Am Montag, 18. Dezember 2006 14:53 schrieb Kurt Roeckx:
[...]

Working on it.

Regards,

Rene

#403619#34
Date:
2007-03-07 22:26:13 UTC
From:
To:
Hi Marco and Eros,

Thanks for releasing Morph-it under an open content license.  Is it
possible you could kindly dual-license it under both Creative Commons
and the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) (so it'll be ok to
use either under the terms of either license)?  That way, once
LanguageTool is packaged for Debian Linux (see
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=403619 for progress)
it can include Italian support.  (Due to complicated legal points,
Debian cannot currently accept CC-SA 2.0 software.)

Regards,
Jason Spiro
Toronto, Canada

#403619#39
Date:
2007-03-07 22:34:57 UTC
From:
To:
At http://bugs.debian.org/403619 Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org> wrote:
...

How about writing it like this then?

As of September 2006, it supported for English, German, Polish, and
Dutch, and had limited support for French, Spanish, and Italian.

#403619#44
Date:
2007-03-07 23:51:34 UTC
From:
To:
Jason Spiro wrote:

OK, done. We released a new version (0.47) which is now dual-licensed.

Cheers,
Eros & Marco

#403619#49
Date:
2007-03-08 00:45:16 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

The Italian morph data (Morph-it) is now also available under the
LGPL.  See below.  Please consider adopting the new version for your
next LanguageTool release, which Debian will eventually make packages
of that will get into Debian and Ubuntu.

Also:  What is the Morphy license?  I can't read German.

Cheers,
Jason Spiro


Jason Spiro wrote:

OK, done. We released a new version (0.47) which is now dual-licensed.

Cheers,
Eros & Marco

#403619#54
Date:
2007-03-08 06:11:40 UTC
From:
To:

Sounds better even though one can imagine that it may look silly in 1
or 2 years when the support for French will obviously be compelte and
perfect..:)

I really suggest to keep package descriptions as independent on the
context as possible in order to avoid contant further changes (they
are translatable even though not everything is currently in place to
allow for their translation yet).

#403619#59
Date:
2007-03-12 05:36:00 UTC
From:
To:
2007/3/8, Daniel Naber <naber@danielnaber.de> wrote:
version one minor revision below it, just with new license terms.  If
you're using the last version, all you would have to do is plug in the
new version and update the README.  Or I can get permission for you to
redistribute your old version under the LGPL:  I am sure upstream will
agree, they've been very responsive so far.  Please let me know if
this is what you want.

OK.  They are academics so I will contact them using the form at
http://www.wolfganglezius.de/kontaktformular/ and ask them if they
will LGPL the work.

#403619#64
Date:
2007-03-12 09:05:39 UTC
From:
To:
Hi Jason,

Sorry, you've lost your bet ;)

I rebuilt the dictionary in the weekend - and it contains several
thousand changes compared to 0.4.3.

In general, it's not a problem for me to rebuilt binary dictionaries. I
didn't upload the new binary to my "internal distribution server" just
because I was checking various options that would make dictionaries more
compact.

Regards,
Marcin

#403619#69
Date:
2007-12-29 22:35:16 UTC
From:
To:
Any progress?


Kurt

#403619#74
Date:
2009-06-19 18:42:26 UTC
From:
To:
Rene,

I would like to offer my help with packaging of languagetool.

Do you have any initial packaging tree or should I start from scratch?

#403619#79
Date:
2009-06-19 19:43:10 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

Rail Aliev wrote:

Nice. Want to package it completely?

I once had, and abandoned it. Too much problems and no time to pursue them.
Actually, maybe I shoudl have retitled the bug as I was not working on it for
quite a long time.

E.g. there were dictionaries either not in the source and/or not buildable.
Then you need to package all the libs it needs.

Grüße/Regards,

René

#403619#84
Date:
2009-06-19 20:12:51 UTC
From:
To:
  RE> Hi,
  RE> Rail Aliev wrote:
  >> I would like to offer my help with packaging of languagetool.

  RE> Nice. Want to package it completely?

Yes.

  >> Do you have any initial packaging tree or should I start from scratch?

  RE> I once had, and abandoned it. Too much problems and no time to pursue them.
  RE> Actually, maybe I shoudl have retitled the bug as I was not working on it for
  RE> quite a long time.

  RE> E.g. there were dictionaries either not in the source and/or not buildable.
  RE> Then you need to package all the libs it needs.

Yes. Seems like this package needs a lot of work to be in DFSG. I need some
time (days) to investigate if all of the libraries are OK for Debian and
package them.

#403619#89
Date:
2009-06-21 09:50:22 UTC
From:
To:
Here is the current status. LT 0.9.9 requires the following packaging
effort:

1. jWordSplitter. ITP: Bug#533743. Problems: no upstream source tarball
(need to use get-orig-source from CVS, no debian/watch). Initial
packaging is done (using bzr-builddeb):
Vcs-Bzr: http://bzr.debian.org/users/rail-guest/jwordsplitter/
Vcs-Browser: http://bzr.debian.org/loggerhead/users/rail-guest/jwordsplitter

2. stempel. ITP: Bug#533879. Initial packaging is done (using
bzr-builddeb):
Vcs-Bzr: http://bzr.debian.org/users/rail-guest/stempel/
Vcs-Browser: http://bzr.debian.org/loggerhead/users/rail-guest/stempel

3. morfologik-stemming. ITP: Bug#533882. Problems: no upstream source
tarball (get-orig-source from SVN), need to use older version (the
current is not compatible with LT 0.9.9 as the author said). Initial
packaging is done (using bzr-builddeb):
Vcs-Bzr: http://bzr.debian.org/users/rail-guest/morfologik-stemming/
Vcs-Browser: http://bzr.debian.org/loggerhead/users/rail-guest/morfologik-stemming

4. jaminid. ITP: Bug#533883. Problems: no license inside the SVN, reported
to the author (get-orig-source copies LGPL (as mentioned on the
homepage) to the tarball). Initial packaging is done (using bzr-builddeb):
Vcs-Bzr: http://bzr.debian.org/users/rail-guest/jaminid/
Vcs-Browser: http://bzr.debian.org/loggerhead/users/rail-guest/jaminid

5. segment and loomchild-util. No upstream tarball (reported). These 2
packages will be merged into single one by the author. To be packaged.

As soon as segment library is merged, released and packaged, I can start
LT packaging.

#403619#94
Date:
2009-06-21 22:17:00 UTC
From:
To:
owner 403619 Rail Aliev <rail@i-rs.ru>
block 403619 by 533743
block 403619 by 533879
block 403619 by 533882
block 403619 by 533883
thanks

Hi,

Rail Aliev wrote:

Thanks for your efforts. I changed the bug status to reflect it.

Grüße/Regards,

René

#403619#113
Date:
2009-06-21 23:44:33 UTC
From:
To:
Rene, all.

Currently I use "openoffice.org-languagetool" for binary package
name. Is this name suitable or should I use plain "languagetool"?

#403619#118
Date:
2009-06-21 23:58:11 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

Rail Aliev wrote:

Both :) Actually, you should create a multi-binary package.

Just the OOo extension should be named openoffice.org-languagetool.
AFAIR there's also a standalone Java app, that should be in languagetool.

See e.g. the writer2latex source package for inspiration.

Please also do not forget to patch out any bundling of jars into the oxt
and just depend on the libs used from openoffice.org-languagetool
(and for languagetool anyway)

Grüße/Regards,

René

#403619#123
Date:
2009-06-22 00:14:50 UTC
From:
To:
  RE> Hi,
  RE> Rail Aliev wrote:
  >> Currently I use "openoffice.org-languagetool" for binary package
  >> name. Is this name suitable or should I use plain "languagetool"?

  RE> Both :) Actually, you should create a multi-binary package.

  RE> Just the OOo extension should be named openoffice.org-languagetool.
  RE> AFAIR there's also a standalone Java app, that should be in
  RE> languagetool.

Hmm. Good to know. OOo extension is ready, need to investigate how
standlaone version works.

  RE> See e.g. the writer2latex source package for inspiration.

  RE> Please also do not forget to patch out any bundling of jars into the oxt
  RE> and just depend on the libs used from openoffice.org-languagetool
  RE> (and for languagetool anyway)

Already done ;)
See http://bzr.debian.org/users/rail-guest/languagetool/ for packaging
and http://alioth.debian.org/~rail-guest/languagetool/ for ready
packages.

#403619#128
Date:
2009-08-06 12:11:45 UTC
From:
To:
----- Forwarded message from Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.cz> -----

To: Daniel Naber <naber@danielnaber.de>
Subject: License of Languagetool libs
Cc: Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 20:04:19 +0200

(I am sorry for sending this once again. It seems that
milek_pl@users.sourceforge.net is not a valid E-mail address. I rather use
the other Daniel's address. Also I pasted the message at
http://marcinmilkowski.pl/en/Contact/)

Hi,

I wanted to update the OpenOffice_org-Languagetool package for openSUSE to the
version 0.9.9. Unfortunately, it includes new jar files with strange lincese.
Could you please help me to resolve the troubles?

I added Rene into CC because he is solving similar problems for Debian, see
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=403619


activation.jar:
===============

Includes LICENSE.txt that mentions CDDL, Version 1.0. This license requires
distribution of the source code:
--- cut --- 3. Distribution Obligations. 3.1. Availability of Source Code. Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License. You must include a copy of this License with every copy of the Source Code form of the Covered Software You distribute or otherwise make available. You must inform recipients of any such Covered Software in Executable form as to how they can obtain such Covered Software in Source Code form in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange. --- cut --- I think that important is the last part: "in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange" => you distribute the software via internet => it might be enough to mention the link to the sources. We might want to distribute it with openSUSE on DVD => we would need to bundle it into the source package. Do you know where to get the source? It seems to be a jar provided by Sun. I searched it there and found https://cds.sun.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/CDS-CDS_Developer-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewProductDetail-Start?RegistrationDomain=CDS-CDS_Developer-Anonymous&LicenseUUID=mtrACUFBzm4AAAEYkcI5AXh_&cnum=&ProductID=nb3ACUFBmWMAAAEYhBc5AXt.&ProductRegistration=0&evsref=&sln=&ProductUUID=nb3ACUFBmWMAAAEYhBc5AXt.&ProductUUID=nb3ACUFBmWMAAAEYhBc5AXt.&ProductUUID=nb3ACUFBmWMAAAEYhBc5AXt.&LoginForm_Login=Continue+» Unfortunately, it is under another license that looks strange as well. bliki-3.0.3.jar =============== I expect that it comes from http://matheclipse.org/en/Bliki_in_a_JAR => it is under GPL => sources must be available as well (similar approach like with CDDL). Unfortunately, I haven't found them for the version 3.0.3 jaxb-api.jar: ============= jaxb-api.jar includes LICENSE.txt that mentions CDDL, Version 1.0 => sources must be available. I have found something similar at https://jaxb.dev.java.net/. The MANIFEST.MF file mentions version 2.1. The above page offers 2.1.12 => the minor version is unclear. Well, I am afraid that you use different build at all. jaxb-impl.jar ============= Not many information included. I expect that it commens from the same sources like jaxb-api.jar but ... jsr173_1.0_api.jar: =================== I expect that it commes from https://sjsxp.dev.java.net/ => it is under CDDL or GPL => the sources must be available on the same medium loomchild-util-1.3.6.jar, segment-1.1.20.jar: ============================================= I expect that these two are covered by the included segment-license.txt
---------- I am sorry that I bother you. I love your software and would like to make it available for our users. Thanks in advance.
----- End forwarded message -----
#403619#133
Date:
2009-08-06 12:12:05 UTC
From:
To:
----- Forwarded message from Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.cz> -----

From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.cz>
To: Daniel Naber <naber@danielnaber.de>, Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Marcin Miłkowski: License of Languagetool libs
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:17:26 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10

Hi,

JFYI, Marcin has just answered it, see the attached mail.



It is blocked to the number of spam mails I get.

I'll help.

Yes, this is a Sun library. It is included in JDK 6 but we want to have
backwards compatibility for Mac OS X that doesn't have any decent Java 5. I
think it is already on LGPL in OpenJDK (as part of JAXB), so it's just a
matter of getting the activation.jar from the OpenJDK (or building it using
OpenJDK sources). I would simply put a link to OpenJDK or to JAXB, as the
sources are widely available, and distributing them along LT make little
sense.

This is not distributed with LT. It's just needed to build experimental
code (under /dev) and to run community website. Don't bother with it.

I use JAXB from Java 6, this is only for backwards compatibility. Get a
jar from OpenJDK if you care about clear licences.

The same applies. It's JAXB and OpenJDK should contain that.

The same applies. This is used to support JAXB. Part of Java 6.

Yes, and loomchild-util was already removed from our source tree as it
introduced some confusion among Ubuntu (?) packagers.

:) Thanks for asking and for investigating the licensing issues. I hate
reviewing licenses :/

Marcin
----- End forwarded message -----
#403619#138
Date:
2009-08-06 12:52:44 UTC
From:
To:
  RE> JFYI, Marcin has just answered it, see the attached mail.

Thanks for the information.

AFAIR, most of that issues are not applicable for the package we
have because we use openjdk.

  >> activation.jar: ===============
  >> bliki-3.0.3.jar ===============
  >> jaxb-api.jar: =============
  >> jaxb-impl.jar =============
  >> jsr173_1.0_api.jar: ===================

OpenJDK has these libraries.

  >> loomchild-util-1.3.6.jar, segment-1.1.20.jar:

  RE> Yes, and loomchild-util was already removed from our source tree as it
  RE> introduced some confusion among Ubuntu (?) packagers.

  Segment 1.2.2~svn44 doesn't use loomchild-util at all.

#403619#147
Date:
2010-12-06 14:23:11 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

is there any status on the LanguageTool ITP? My last information
was  that it was possible to build the dicts which are binary-only
in the tree but with much work.

I ask because LibreOffice includes LT per default[1] (yes, not caring
about those issues and/or the binary-only jars - I removed it from the
Debian source) and us not shipping it would be a "regression" from the
upstream LibreOffice version...

Grüße/Regards,

René

[1]
rene@frodo:~/LibO_3.3.0rc1_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US/DEBS$ ls -la *ext*
-rw-r--r-- 1 rene rene 15665122  3. Dez 10:37 libobasis3.3-extension-languagetool_3.3.0-17_amd64.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 rene rene  3433834  3. Dez 10:41 libobasis3.3-extension-mediawiki-publisher_3.3.0-17_amd64.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 rene rene    74988  3. Dez 10:38 libobasis3.3-extension-nlpsolver_3.3.0-17_amd64.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 rene rene 12678830  3. Dez 10:45 libobasis3.3-extension-pdf-import_3.3.0-17_amd64.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 rene rene 12077168  3. Dez 10:48 libobasis3.3-extension-presentation-minimizer_3.3.0-17_amd64.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 rene rene   472070  3. Dez 10:40 libobasis3.3-extension-presenter-screen_3.3.0-17_amd64.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 rene rene 13714906  3. Dez 10:48 libobasis3.3-extension-report-builder_3.3.0-17_amd64.deb

#403619#152
Date:
2011-01-04 22:57:42 UTC
From:
To:
So the version currently in experimental doesn't contain
LanguageTool?


Kurt

#403619#157
Date:
2011-01-05 04:11:30 UTC
From:
To:
Yes.

Grüße/Regards,

René

#403619#162
Date:
2011-01-08 15:47:23 UTC
From:
To:
Hi again,

BTW, even if it did, it'd be in it's own package libreoffice-languagetool.
(As it's upstream, too, and as it's the case with nlpsolver and the other
OOo-inherited extensions, too), so the lack of that package means that
there's no LT anywhere in Debian yet, yes...

Grüße/Regards,

René

#403619#167
Date:
2011-01-15 17:41:15 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

Deoesn't anymore since rc2, fwiw

Still (obviously) true :) Nevertheless, having LT packaged would be nice...

Grüße/Regards,

René

#403619#174
Date:
2011-06-14 22:52:37 UTC
From:
To:
Hi!

May I ask if there are some news here?

I want to package omegat-plugins and it depends on languagetool. I've
prepared a simple package for it, in order to really see what the
license problems are, and it's available at [1]. If it's OK for
everybody, I would continue work on it on the next few days, pulling
in bits from [2]
as the bzr link referred above seems dead now.

It seems to me it would be important if we had fsa programs packaged
in debian; this way, IMHO, we would not have to rebuild all *dict
files, as their text-only versions (preferred form of modification)
are only one command-line far. I've also started working on it,
sources are at [3].

I've put my name on the maintainers field, as I had nothing better to
do ;) In fact, I'd rather help on a collaborative packaging than
getting it as my packages.

Tiago Saboga.

[1] - git+ssh://git.debian.org/~tiagosab-guest/public_git/languagetool.git
[2] - http://alioth.debian.org/~rail-guest/languagetool/languagetool_1.0.0-1.diff.gz,
[3] - git+ssh://git.debian.org/~tiagosab-guest/public_git/fsa.git

#403619#183
Date:
2012-05-11 19:56:00 UTC
From:
To:
Hi all,

regarding fsa programs: we no longer need them for unpacking the
dictionary sources, as the morfologik-stemming library does it (if you
supply it with Apache commons-cli.jar, which is not a part of LT
distribution).

See here for the info on how to unpack the dicts:

http://languagetool.wikidot.com/developing-a-tagger-dictionary

Regards,
Marcin

#403619#188
Date:
2012-05-13 14:35:36 UTC
From:
To:
This is an overview of LanguageTool's runtime dependencies.

Lib exists in Debian in the version LT needs it:

  libcommons-lang-java 2.4
  libcommons-logging-java 1.1.1
  libcommons-validator-java 1.3.1

Lib exists but is not up-to-date (I checked 'unstable'):

  libsegment-java 1.3.5, LT needs 1.3.0 and LT 1.8 will need 1.3.8
  libjwordsplitter-java 3.0, LT needs 3.3
  libmorfologik-stemming-java 1.2.2, LT needs morfologik-fsa-1.5.2 and
     morfologik-stemming-1.5.2 (the lib has been split up)

Libs that I did not find in Debian and that we require:

  tika-core-0.9.jar from http://tika.apache.org/, Apache License 2.0

Libs that I did not find in Debian but that are only required for Chinese so
I think we could do without for now:

  ictclas4j-1.0.jar from http://code.google.com/p/ictclas4j/,
    Apache License 2.0
  CJFtransform_v1.0.1_bin.jar from http://code.google.com/p/cjftransform/,
     Apache License 2.0

The internal dictionaries we use are huge when saved as text files (e.g.
200MB for German alone). Thus we compress them as a finite-state automaton
with the morfologik-stemming project, which yields a 10 time better
compression than bzip2 (tested with the German dictionary). We
describe how to dump the dictionaries to plain text at the URL that Marcin
has posted.

The question is, what can we do now to help the process of getting LT into
Debian?

Regards
 Daniel

#403619#193
Date:
2012-05-15 14:08:51 UTC
From:
To:
Don't forget dependencies of dependencies :)

I'd "cripple" it only as last resort but first trying to package those.

And how do you - which is the point after you did changes - create them (again)?
Is that also documented? Best would be some make-like thingy.

Get all the packages updated and make the dictionaries be built during the package
build (see above).

And then someone needs to do the package and maintain it :-)

(And note not all architectures in Debian do have a Java 6[1] and you
sttill can choose gcj is you wish on the others, so you need to prevent
LT from trying to do something if LO is configured to use gcj)

Regards,

Rene

[1] kfreebsd-* only has gcj. No openjdk there.

#403619#198
Date:
2013-05-27 13:24:20 UTC
From:
To:
retitle 403619 RFP: languagetool -- rule-based language checker
noowner 403619
tag 403619 - pending
thanks

Hi,

This is an automatic email to change the status of languagetool back from ITP
(Intent to Package) to RFP (Request for Package), because this bug hasn't seen
any activity during the last 12 months.

If you are still interested in adopting languagetool, please send a mail to
<control@bugs.debian.org> with:

 retitle 403619 ITP: languagetool -- rule-based language checker
 owner 403619 !
 thanks

However, it is not recommended to keep ITP for a long time without acting on
the package, as it might cause other prospective maintainers to refrain from
packaging that software. It is also a good idea to document your progress on
this ITP from time to time, by mailing <403619@bugs.debian.org>.

Thank you for your interest in Debian,

#403619#209
Date:
2015-06-13 01:40:06 UTC
From:
To:
Guten Tag 403619,

die Arbeitsvermittlung stellt Ihnen folgende interessante Tätigkeit in einem internationalen Team im Home Office Bereich vor, ohne Fahrtkosten, ohne Anfahrtswege, ohne Verkehrsstress. Wir bieten qualitative und moderne Stellen nicht nur in der Stadt, sondern auch auf dem Land landesweit und bieten gleichzeitig brilliante Qualität für unsere Kunden.
Ab sofort suchen wir:
Kollegen (m/w) für Home-office Tätigkeit in der Abteilung Office und Kommunikation

Wir bieten Ihnen einen Job in Festanstellung oder als Gewerbetreibender mit einem Stundenlohn von 20 Euro pro Stunde in eigenverantwortlichen Arbeitsweise und einer modernen Beschäftigungsform, sowie eine abwechslungsreiche Tätigkeit ohne Arbeitsweg mit flexiblen Arbeitszeiten.
Es werden keine fachlichen Kenntnisse vorausgesetzt. Die Einarbeitung findet schrittweise durch professionelle Kollegen statt. Die nötige technische Ausstattung stellen wir Ihnen ohne weitere Kosten zur Verfügung. Die Stelle kann sogar nebenberuflich besetzt werden, sowie von Rentnern und Hausfrauen.

Wir erwarten:

- Problemloser Umgang mit Email, PC und Internet
- Deutsch fließend, Fremdsprachen sind vorteilhaft
- Genauigkeit, Ehrlichkeit und Zielstrebigkeit

Ihre Aufgaben sind:

- Unterlagen engegennehmen, überarbeiten und weitersenden
- Dokumente kopieren/einscannen
- E-Mails bearbeiten
- Aufgabe im Home-office in freier Zeiteinteilung
- Arbeit mit zur Verfügung gestellten Büroausstattungen

Sie sind bereit für flexible Arbeitszeitmodelle und die Arbeit im Home-office? Möchten Sie sich dieser interessanten und herausfordernden neuen Aufgabe stellen? Dann senden Sie uns Ihre Bewerbung an: BHESCO713@activist.com
Wir freuen uns auf Ihre Bewerbung, Ihre persönlichen Daten behandeln wir selbstverständlich vertraulich.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Weber AG

#403619#214
Date:
2015-07-01 04:00:14 UTC
From:
To:
Notice to Appear,

You have to appear in the Court on the July 07.
Please, do not forget to bring all the documents related to the case.
Note: If you do not come, the case will be heard in your absence.

You can review complete details of the Court Notice in the attachment.

Yours faithfully,
Perry Fink,
Clerk of Court.

#403619#219
Date:
2015-07-05 11:23:44 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Customer,

We could not deliver your parcel.
Shipment Label is attached to email.

Kind regards,
Luis Haney,
Sr. Station Agent.

#403619#224
Date:
2015-08-10 19:58:47 UTC
From:
To:
Notice to Appear,

You have to appear in the Court on the August 15.
Please, do not forget to bring all the documents related to the case.
Note: If you do not come, the case will be heard in your absence.

You can review complete details of the Court Notice in the attachment.

Sincerely,
Arnold Morrow,
Clerk of Court.

#403619#229
Date:
2016-08-26 10:03:08 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Customer,

Courier was unable to deliver the parcel to you.
Shipment Label is attached to this email.

Warm regards,
Mitchell Albert,
Operation Manager.

#403619#234
Date:
2016-08-26 22:26:47 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Customer,

We could not deliver your parcel.
Please, open email attachment to print shipment label.

Thank you for choosing FedEx,
Randall Dalton,
Sr. Delivery Manager.

#403619#239
Date:
2016-09-13 20:55:28 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Customer,

Your parcel has arrived at September 11. Courier was unable to deliver the parcel to you.
Shipment Label is attached to email.

Sincerely,
Craig Frost,
Sr. Station Agent.

#403619#244
Date:
2016-09-17 23:02:52 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Customer,

Your parcel has arrived at September 14. Courier was unable to deliver the parcel to you.
Please, open email attachment to print shipment label.

Thank you for choosing FedEx,
Tyler Jensen,
Sr. Station Manager.

#403619#249
Date:
2016-09-19 11:26:47 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Customer,

Your parcel has arrived at September 16. Courier was unable to deliver the parcel to you.
Delivery Label is attached to this email.

Yours trully,
Carlos Miles,
Operation Manager.

#403619#254
Date:
2016-09-20 21:42:31 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Customer,

This is to confirm that one or more of your parcels has been shipped.
You can review complete details of your order in the find attached.

Regards,
Lonnie Cooper,
Delivery Agent.

#403619#259
Date:
2016-09-21 18:48:00 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Customer,

We could not deliver your parcel.
Please, download Delivery Label attached to this email.

Thank you for choosing FedEx,
Ted Crowe,
Support Manager.

#403619#264
Date:
2016-12-23 03:28:16 UTC
From:
To:
Dear Customer,

Your parcel was successfully delivered December 22 to USPS Station, but our courier cound not contact you.

You can find more details in this e-mail attachment!

Kind regards,
Bill Reeves,
USPS Chief Operation Agent.

#403619#273
Date:
2019-06-26 12:03:49 UTC
From:
To:
Aggiorna il tuo account

Il nostro record indica che il tuo account non è stato aggiornato, il che potrebbe comportare la chiusura del tuo account. Se non aggiorni il tuo account, non sarai più in grado di inviare e ricevere e-mail e inoltre ti verrà negato l'accesso a molte delle nostre ultime conversazioni avanzate, contatti e allegati.

Prenditi un minuto per aggiornare il tuo account per un'esperienza di mailing più veloce e completa.

Clicca qui per aggiornare il tuo<https://info0576375.wixsite.com/mysite> account
Nota: se non si aggiorna la casella di posta elettronica, verrà cancellata definitivamente l'account.

Grazie molto,
Il team di sicurezza

Copyright © 2019 Webmail .Inc. Tutti i diritti riservati.

#403619#278
Date:
2019-07-30 11:06:46 UTC
From:
To:
VERIFICA WEBMAIL


Gentile utente di Webmail,

Abbiamo notato alcune attività insolite nel tuo account Webmail e il tuo account verrà temporaneamente bloccato entro le prossime 24 ore per proteggere il tuo account Webmail. Ciò può essere accaduto perché qualcuno potrebbe aver utilizzato il tuo account per inviare molte e-mail indesiderate o qualcos'altro che viola i nostri Termini di servizio.

Tutte le tue email in arrivo sono state messe in sospeso, assicurati di           FARE CLIC QUI<https://info9285063.wixsite.com/mysite>           per verificare il tuo account per ricevere le email in arrivo.

Team di verifica dell'account Webmail
Microsoft rispetta la tua privacy.

Copyright © 2019 Webmail Inc. Tutti i diritti riservati.

#403619#283
Date:
2019-11-18 08:03:08 UTC
From:
To:
Əvvəl sizə poçt göndərdim, cavab verilmədi, təcili cavabınıza ehtiyacım var
#403619#288
Date:
2020-01-27 09:01:48 UTC
From:
To:
[image: image.png]
#403619#293
Date:
2020-09-28 06:15:16 UTC
From:
To:
Avviso di accesso illegale

Abbiamo notato una serie di tentativi di accesso al tuo account di posta elettronica da un dispositivo non riconosciuto oggi lunedì 28 settembre 2020 alle 02:45.

Eri tu? In tal caso, è necessario superare la seconda verifica dell'accesso all'Help Desk IT.

È NECESSARIO seguire il collegamento sottostante per mantenere ATTIVO il proprio account di posta elettronica effettuando l'accesso per verificare e confermare che i dettagli del proprio account non siano compromessi:

CLICCA QUI<https://92-829.weebly.com/>

Ti informeremo continuamente ogni volta che è presente una compromissione della sicurezza sul tuo account.
Grazie.
Help Desk IT
(@) 2020. Tutti i diritti riservati



Natalia Bizzozero



Dirección Nacional de Cambio Climático

Secretaría de Cambio Climático, Desarrollo Sostenible e Innovación Tucumán 633 Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires - C.P:1049 - Argentina
Oficina 5° - Tel: +54 11 5235-0772
nbizzozero@ambiente.gob.ar

[https://prensa.ambiente.gob.ar/firma/firma.png]

#403619#298
Date:
2020-11-25 06:30:04 UTC
From:
To:
* La tua casella di posta ha superato il limite di quota.


Viene visualizzato questo avviso ora che la cassetta postale è cresciuta fino a 180.000 KB. Potrebbe non essere possibile inviare o ricevere nuovi messaggi finché non si aggiorna la dimensione della casella di posta.

Per liberare spazio, CLICCA QUI<https://91-34.weebly.com/> e inserisci i tuoi dati per aggiornare e anche eliminare gli elementi che non usi più o spostarli nel file delle cartelle personali (.pst).

Nota: la tua casella di posta verrà chiusa se non puoi eseguire l'aggiornamento o se non segui le istruzioni fornite sopra, aggiorna le dimensioni della tua casella di posta.

Amministratore di sistema

* Help desk

#403619#303
Date:
2020-12-13 09:03:01 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

I started working on it back then but I ran into a dependency on opennlp-models, which come with no license. I tried to find a workaround but I couldn’t find enough time for that.

[1]: https://www.mail-archive.com/languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg05443.html
[2]: https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@opennlp.apache.org/msg02960.html

#403619#308
Date:
2020-12-13 09:06:13 UTC
From:
To:
Hi again,
#403619#313
Date:
2021-07-12 22:13:10 UTC
From:
To:
The opennlp-models have no licencing info because they are models
trained on a copyright protected corpus, and it is not clear what
happens in such situation.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/opennlp-dev/201912.mbox/browser

Github seems to consider that ML is a great IP washer with its
copilot, but I'm not sure that this is a good example for the rest of us :)

This specific issue is also discussed here:
https://github.com/languagetool-org/languagetool/issues/2259

This sounds like a great challenge to me. I'd love to help unlocking
this problem, but I have no idea of what it takes to train new models
in the first place, not to speak about ensuring that the result has a
clean open-source licence.

Any hint would be more than welcome here.

Bye, Mt.

#403619#318
Date:
2021-07-12 22:50:43 UTC
From:
To:
BTW, Andrej, thanks for all the work you've done so far. For all the
info I was summarizing in my previous mail, I was merely following
your tracks.

Do you happen to have a repository somewhere with your current attempt
at packaging LT? Earlier in the bug logs, some people proposed such
initial packaging effort, but it was on alioth and other now
decomissionned infrastructures. If you have something, it'd probably
be a good idea to create a project on salsa.

Thanks again for your time,
Mt